A hearing decides whether dogs accused of biting someone should be freed from constraints — or muzzled in public henceforth.

Casey the boxer's case was heard in doggy court - a.k.a. the city of Toronto muzzle tribunal - in late December. Her muzzle ordered was removed. She is seen here with owner Ricardo Machado.

By:Amy DempseyStaff Reporter, Published on Sun Jan 06 2013

Once a month, deep in the bowels of the North York Civic Centre, a court for canines is called to order. They call it the muzzle tribunal — a hearing where the fate of dogs accused of sinking their teeth into humans or other domestic pets is decided.

All dogs reported for biting are investigated by city enforcement officers. If a bite is confirmed, and it occurred off the owner’s property, the sentence is automatic: the perpetrating pup is ordered to wear a muzzle at all times in public.

The tribunal gives dog owners a chance to appeal. At stake for these hounds: muzzle for life, or freedom.

On a late-December morning, a clock on the wall in the civic centre’s meeting room No. 1 reads 9:23. The tribunal is about to begin.

This makeshift court of law is about as big as a high-school classroom, with four long tables arranged into a giant square and a ridiculous number of swivel chairs lined up along the walls.

Fiona Skurjat, a city of Toronto supervisor appointed to the muzzle tribunal a year ago, sits at the head table, a binder full of documents laid out neatly in front of her, an old-school tape recorder — the kind with cassettes! — set up to her left.

Today, Skurjat will decide the fate of three muzzled dogs.

First on the docket: Casey, a 3-year-old boxer accused of charging at and biting a man on the sidewalk outside her home. Her owners dispute much of the victim’s story. Casey has been under a muzzle order for six months.

As defined in the legalese prose of the city’s municipal code, a muzzle is “a humane fastening or covering device of adequate strength over the mouth to prevent a dog from biting.”

It’s not a painful thing, but for the four-legged folk forced to wear them, a muzzle can be a barrier to life’s simple pleasures — a game of fetch, a tongue lap from a pool of water, an unexpected snack discovered on the sidewalk.

Sometimes the dogs in question are a clear threat to public safety and a muzzle is necessary.Other times, the circumstances are ambiguous, and it may be an unfair life sentence.

That’s why there’s a court for the dogs.

In meeting room No. 1, Casey’s owners, a young couple with a 2-year-old girl, sit to the right of the bench. Casey herself is not here; dogs aren’t invited to canine court.

Sitting to the left of the bench are the city representatives: Julie Conway, who acts as a sort-of lawyer for the tribunal, and Craig Hewitt, a Toronto Animal Services enforcement officer.

With a few minutes to go, a man enters the room, speaking loudly to Conway, telling her he wants to be compensated for the time he had to take off work to be here. “Who do I talk to?” he asks.

The man, who identifies himself as the dog bite victim, is wearing blue jeans and running shoes, a faded ball cap and what appears to be a pair of safety glasses. He has a graying moustache and a soul patch.

Compensation is not a matter for this tribunal, he is told. The man takes a seat at the back of the room, sighs, pulls out a cellphone and makes a call.

“Tell John to look into that civil stuff we talked about,” he says, loud enough for Casey’s owners to hear. “I’m missing out on some money today and I want to get paid. I’m losing 500 bucks and there’s 30 guys waiting for me."

Up on the bench, Skurjat clears her throat.

“Morning everyone,” she says. “This is public hearing number 12-035.”

With the tribunal called to order, Skurjat says she aims to answer three questions before rendering her decision: One, did a dog bite occur? Two, was it indeed the dog in question who did the biting? And three, under what circumstances did the bite occur?

If the answers to the first and second question are yes, it is Skurjat’s job to weigh the evidence and decide, based on the circumstances, if a muzzle order is necessary. The tribunal recognizes that all dogs have the capacity to bite and can and will bite in certain situations, she says.

Skurjat, 56, is one of three tribunal members who take turns presiding over the monthly muzzle hearings, on top of their regular city jobs. In the past year, she has heard appeals from the owners of just about every breed of dog you can imagine, from a Pomeranian to a Rhodesian ridgeback. She herself is a dog lover who has owned pets all her life and was once bitten by a golden retriever.

The first person called to testify at Casey’s hearing is the man in the safety glasses, who is asked to state his name — “Carlo Sistilli” — and describe the events of June 3, 2012.

Sistilli says he was walking to a convenience store that day with his 6-year-old when a large brown dog came barrelling out of a house near his own. Frightened, he screamed at the dog and charged right back at it to keep the animal away from his boy, he says. The dog then circled Sistilli and bit him on the lower right calf. He says the owners did not offer help. “This dog was aggressive, angry-looking, dangerous,” he says.

At the table next to him, Casey’s owners sit silently, wearing expressions of frustration, shaking their heads.

They tell a different version of events. Casey, they say, is a friendly dog, always gentle with their daughter and adored by friends and family. On the day in question, they were moving into a new house and in the chaos accidentally left the yard gate open. They say Casey became aggressive because Sistilli was screaming and kicking at her. They offered help, but say he refused it and called the police.

“I would like (the muzzle order) removed because I don’t think my dog is a harm to anyone,” says Casey’s owner, Ricardo Machado, his voice shaking with emotion. “Right now I see she’s suffering. I take her for a walk, I put on the muzzle, she doesn’t like it.”

Skurjat sends everyone out of the room, deliberates privately for 10 minutes, and calls everyone back. She has words of wisdom for each party.

To the owners, a warning: “Regardless of being on your property or not, you need to be in control of your dog.”

To the victim, a kind caution: “Going forward, if you come up against a dog, I would suggest that turning and walking away or being quiet would probably be the best thing to do.”

But on the way out, Sistilli offers an unexpected gesture. “Happy holidays, OK guys?” he says to Casey’s owners.

“Merry Christmas,” they say back. “All the best.”

Casey’s owners won’t be the only ones to go home with good news. Later in the day, a 3-year-old German shepherd named Senator will have his muzzle order revoked.

And then there’s Skimmer, a 6-year-old Jack Russell terrier rescue dog with a bad case of post-traumatic stress disorder, accused of latching onto the neck of a Chihuahua and seriously hurting the small pup. Though the Chihuahua was off-leash at the time, Skimmer’s history of aggression worked against him.

“With time and with proper training, I’m sure that it will be better,” Skurjat tells the dog’s owner. “But at this time, for public safety, I’m keeping the muzzle order on.”

Delivering disappointing decisions can be difficult, Skurjat admits outside of court. Sometimes people yell, sometimes they cry. She has to shake off the emotion.

“I’m not heartless,” she says, “but I can’t be swayed by tears . . . I still have to pull it back and say I need the facts. Weighing the facts — that’s what our job is.”

Muzzle Numbers

2012

• 168 muzzle orders issued

• 55 hearings held

• 46 orders revoked, 9 stayed

2011

• 206 muzzle orders issued

• 98 hearings held

• 83 orders revoked, 15 stayed

2010

• 225 muzzle orders issued

• 97 hearings held

• 81 orders revoked, 16 stayed

Source: Toronto Animal Services

DOG-BITE-MUZZLE: DEFINED

DOG: A canine species of the species Canis familiaris.

BITE: Piercing or puncturing the skin as a result of contact with a dog's tooth or teeth.

MUZZLE: A humane fastening or covering device of adequate strength over the mouth to prevent a dog from biting.

Source: Toronto Municipal Code

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.